Oil Prices--why not conservation?

[David_Paul]

Alan, you are involved in sceince as I recall. Familar with Richard A. Muller? (UC Berkeley. Lawrence Livermore. (name removed by moderator)A) What do you think of him? He makes some interesting observations in in the Conservation Bomb:

"Arthur Rosenfeld is a former professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley, founder of Berkeley’s Center for Building Sciences, a former senior advisor to the Department of Energy on energy efficiency, and currently a California energy commissioner. He is one of the world’s true experts on conservation, and in a recent study of the history of energy use, he made a rather remarkable discovery. From 1845 to the present, the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of gross national product has steadily decreased at the rate of about 1 percent per year. This is not quite as spectacular as Moore’s Law of integrated circuits, but it has been tested over a longer period of time. One percent per year yields a factor of 2.7 when compounded over 100 years. It took 56 BTUs (59,000 joules) of energy consumption to produce one (1992) dollar of GNP in 1845. By 1998, the same dollar required only 12.5 BTUs (13,200 joules) . "

Article above and Professor Muller’s website is here:

muller.lbl.gov/

Fun stuff. I like “Physics for Presidents” which he teaches to entering students. Chocolate Chip cookies, by weight, have
ten times the potential energy of TNT.

 

[FightingFat]

TPJCatholic:

fightingfat,

No, because I could never handle the politics of the office. I would not be very diplomatic in my approach.

How about you?

I do like the idea of politics (democracy) and standing up for the people. I look at the election process in the US and I see money, I see men with money aiming to gain more wealth. That dissapoints me.
I would not want to be President because I would find the decisions to difficult to make I think. I could not be President in a country that allowed abortion for example. I could not be Prime Minister and keep it off the agenda as TB does here either.

 

[David_Paul]

FightingFat:

I do like the idea of politics (democracy) and standing up for the people. I look at the election process in the US and I see money, I see men with money aiming to gain more wealth. That dissapoints me.

The man who spent the most money last year lost the election. The four others with Soros–Bing, Lewis and the Sandlers–lost the election. They dumped over $75 million into the Kerry campaign.

The top five GOP donors spent less than a third of that and their man won. GOP also had far more small individual donors than the DNC did.

So the people were heard. The big money lost the last election.

They haven’t given up however. 70 multimilliionaires and billionaires met in AZ last spring to plot a comeback for the Democratic party.

Curious what you mean by “politics (democracy)”. Democracy, like republicianism, is neutral. It is a form, the content may be good or bad and degrees in between.

Aside from that, America is not a democracy but a democratically elected constitutional republic. Oddly enough, the Democratic Party relies the least on a democratic process. It filibusters in the Senate and believes activist judges, not elected representives should decide issues such as abortion, affirmation action and the role of religion in the public square.

 

[manualman]

There are two reasons nothing is being done.

1. Democrats generally want to believe that solar, wind, tides, geothermal and conservation will solve all problems. Unfortunately, the fact is that all these combined will never amount to more than a tiny fraction of the energy needs. Republicans realize this and resist the ‘feel good’ investments Democrats would be willing to make in developing these further.
2. Republicans generally want to further develop conventional energy supplies: oil drilling, nuke construction, coal plants. Democrats realize this will PO their environmental voting block, so they oppose further development of these sources.

So when you have a situation where you can’t develop more of the energy supply systems that WORK, and you haven’t identified any NEW energy supplies that actually work, you just don’t have any options, do you?

 

[TPJCatholic]

david,

How have our lives been tightened?

==> Intrusive, insulting and humilitating searches at airports.

==> Intrusive. insulting and humiliating searches at concerts and at many large entertainment venues.

==> Gas prices that are reaching to the stars with no end in sight and with it having an impact on everything we buy (I have five kids, every extra dollar spent on gas is a dollar I do not have for other things).

==> Freedom of speech being lessened by police tactics that prevent groups from being anywhere near main events…staging them sometimes blocks and miles away where no-one hears what they have to say.

==> Roadblocks across many county and state lines for the sake of catching possible dui’s, with humiliating car searches of families that are doing nothing wrong at all (this has happened to me personally and it is humiliating and it feels like something from Nazi Germany).

==> There are many more, and they have all been given to us since 911…we are clearly not on the right path, we are slowly losing the true freedoms we used to enjoy. I am no fool, we need to be safe, yet what we are doing is not working.

You mention Bush is doing nothing about oil. What would you have him do?

==> Take it on himself to lead a crusade to conserve out natural resources. To take on himself to demand that we find alternatives to ol, no matter the cost. To cease worrying about going Mars, and place our efforts into making us free again. To take it on himself the knowledge that our earth does have finite natural resoruces and those resources do NOT belong only to Americans. That would be a start.

Do you believe opening open the Roan plateau, the Sterling project in CA (among others), trying to get drilling in ANWR, asking that refineries be built on military bases and the recently passed energy bill is doing nothing?

==> Yes, becasue it is simply more of the same. We need a new source of energy, a new way of doing life…not the same old story…been there and done that. There is only so much oil in the ground, no matter where we get it. He should be thinking outside of the box, not inside the old realm.

You ask "do we want perpetual war because we have to constantly stick out nation into countries that hold vast reserves of oil? Not sure what you mean. Oil is the cause of all war? A “perpetual war” is a given?

==> So long as we stick out noses into countries that are independent nations for the sazke of protecting our interests, we will have perpetual war. Do you not see that thos countries (no matter what we think of them) have a God given right to choose their own paths? If we did not need oil, we would not need to be in those countries and terrorism would not be what it is…

Why do you support him if you don’t know why he wanted to be President?

==> Because he was the best available and because I believe he is trying to do the right thing with life (though I now wonder about that as well). I have no clue why he wanted to be President, that has no impact on why I support him.

Why do you think that? What evidence do you have of that? And why, if you believe that, do you “support President Bush”?

==> Read all of the above.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

wisdom 3:5:

There was an article in our local newspaper on a young woman who has designed a house that uses solar power and the temperature of the earth to heat and run electricity in the house! Why we aren’t building these houses stumps me! The cost to build is not more than a normal house. A nice side effect of this kind of heating is that people that suffer from allergies experience relief. It make so much sense, but I haven’t seen anything else about it in the papers.

I saw a house like that in my area, too. It’s a great idea, at least for the future, but right now many of us can’t afford any kind of new house, and must restrict our housing searches to the existing stock.

I wonder how well the solar house works in colder climates like mine, where the sun doesn’t get very high during the winter, and you only get two hot months out of the year. Wouldn’t those houses need some sort of back-up systems? I imagine that might increase the cost.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[TPJCatholic]

manualman,

There are two reasons nothing is being done.

1. Democrats generally want to believe that solar, wind, tides, geothermal and conservation will solve all problems. Unfortunately, the fact is that all these combined will never amount to more than a tiny fraction of the energy needs. Republicans realize this and resist the ‘feel good’ investments Democrats would be willing to make in developing these further.

==> Respectfully, that is a very pessimistic attitude. Sure, those technologies will not help more then a few percent. Yet, who knows what we can learn by jumping into those areas and by trying new things. We must investigate every possible alternative. We must not give-up.

1. Republicans generally want to further develop conventional energy supplies: oil drilling, nuke construction, coal plants. Democrats realize this will PO their environmental voting block, so they oppose further development of these sources.

==> Sure, that’s the real politics of the situation. Yet, trying to find new ways is always productive. Is there really anything wrong with trying to build cars that can get 50-100 mpg? Are you saying that if we cut our auto gasoline consumption in half, that there would be no impact to the oil problem?

So when you have a situation where you can’t develop more of the energy supply systems that WORK, and you haven’t identified any NEW energy supplies that actually work, you just don’t have any options, do you?

==> We have not really jumped into any of these areas because of good old fashioned greed. Oil is big, big money and this nation won’t leave it until it has no choice at all…perhaps in 50 years when we see the real impact of doing next to nothing. Republicans are no better then the dems on these issues…they are politically motivated.

 

[vern_humphrey]

CarolAnnSFO:

I saw a house like that in my area, too. It’s a great idea, at least for the future, but right now many of us can’t afford any kind of new house, and must restrict our housing searches to the existing stock.

I wonder how well the solar house works in colder climates like mine, where the sun doesn’t get very high during the winter, and you only get two hot months out of the year. Wouldn’t those houses need some sort of back-up systems? I imagine that might increase the cost.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

I was very tempted to build a house like that – until I started looking into it. There are all sorts of hidden problems – like the need to use batteries that can start fires or cause explosions if not properly vented, the availability and cost of appliances that run on Direct Current (try counting up all the electrical devices you have around your house, from the refrigerator to your electric drill), the efficiency (or lack thereof) of inverters, and the problems a shade tree can cause you.

In the end, quality construction and good insulation is cheaper and more effective.

Now I did a few other things – such as install a Water Furnace ™, which circulates water through five 150-foot wells, and uses the resulting 55 degree water to increase the efficiency of the heat pump, and build a finished basement with a wood-burning stove (we have ice storms in the Ozarks that can knock out power for a week or more.)

But most “silver bullets” really aren’t that good – NBC did a story a day or so ago on hybrid cars – they don’t produce the savings most of us think they do, and over the life of the car, the savings they do produce are quite small.

Things like nuclear, coal, and bio-diesel are going to be the answer.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

vern humphrey:

I was very tempted to build a house like that – until I started looking into it. There are all sorts of hidden problems – like the need to use batteries that can start fires or cause explosions if not properly vented, the availability and cost of appliances that run on Direct Current (try counting up all the electrical devices you have around your house, from the refrigerator to your electric drill), the efficiency (or lack thereof) of inverters, and the problems a shade tree can cause you.

Things are never as simple as they seem! I have no air conditioning, and I keep my thermostat set to 61 or 62 degrees in the winter (I can’t really stand it much warmer than that – put it at 65, and my house feels like an oven), so I guess I’m doing my part.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[manualman]

TPJ

We don’t necessarily disagree in the end.

My point is that democrats obstruct further development of existing, mature energy sources based on environmental ideology. Republicans obstruct the promotion of new sources based on an ideology of “if you give an inch, you’ll have to give a mile.”

Once again, political polarization stands in the way of a responsible, balanced approach.

Like Democrats valid concerns about environment, republicans make good points too.

Take cars. 50-100 mpg, huh? Can it be done? maybe. But SHOULD it be done? What if an 80 mpg car requires giving up modern crash safety standards (to get weight down)? What if it entails the creation of 20,000 pounds of toxic mining tailings to get the heavy metals that form the hybrid battery pack for ONE car!?! (Mining frequently has worse than 100:1 ratio of tailings to refined product ratio). What if the energy use involved in all that mining and extra manufacturing used up a big chunk of the gas saved over the life of the car? (It does, which is why hybrids cost more even though they don’t sell at profitable prices) What if the true extra costs of building a car with essentially two power plants never get paid off by the gas price savings (when you amortize in the cost of battery replacement)?

People get too narrow focused (high mpg at all costs) instead of thinking through all the implications of major changes in policy.

IMO, the right way to go is fund research into new technology, but not try to legislate its use. The market WILL adopt new technology when it really IS superior and more efficient than the existing energy sources. This is how Big Oil knocked out Big WHALE Oil! It’ll happen again when somebody really makes a workable Mr. Fusion.

P.S. I recently built a new house. I looked at the cost/benefit of going to 2x6 walls/insulation instead of 2x4 R13 insulation. Even if natural gas doubled in price I would never make my money back based on the 6% mortgage rate I could get at the time. However, the sealed combustion chamber 93% efficient furnace and forced air gas water heater eliminated the need for a chimney on my house. This approach saved a similar amount of energy (no constant chimney loss) and cost peanuts. Similarly, it cost me NOTHING to pick a lot and house that let’s the sun shine in through south facing windows onto my darkish ceramic tile kitchen/dinette floor. In winter, this heats the floor noticably. In summer, we twist the blinds to block most of the light off. The attic has about two feet of loose fiberglass fluff insultation. My point is that some thing touted as beneficial to the environment really are. Some aren’t. Be suspicious and do the homework.

 

[TPJCatholic]

manualman,

Take cars. 50-100 mpg, huh? Can it be done? maybe. But SHOULD it be done?

==> Yes, of course it should be done. More nations are beginning to use large amounts of oil…there is only so much oil in the ground. We pay now, or we suffer deeply later.

What if an 80 mpg car requires giving up modern crash safety standards (to get weight down)?

==> That is a defeatist attitude. There are risks to every new step forward. If our culture was afraid, we would never have built and airplane or a railroad track through mountains, etc…
==> Perhaps this culture needs readjusting so that speed limits come way down in all city areas to a point where safety standards are not the problem. Instead of 65 mph, perhaps 30 as a max is a better way to go with electric vehicles. Who knows, but we sure won’t advance if we are afraid to try.

What if it entails the creation of 20,000 pounds of toxic mining tailings to get the heavy metals that form the hybrid battery pack for ONE car!?!

==> So, if one approach does not work, try 100 more, and then 100 more…

What if the true extra costs of building a car with essentially two power plants never get paid off by the gas price savings (when you amortize in the cost of battery replacement)?

==> What if 50 years from now our children can no longer drive because we took no real actions for the future? That is far more impactful then us buying a vehicle that is 2,000 more then gas only vehicles. We either thing big picture, and long term, or we will be swalloed whole in mere decades.

IMO, the right way to go is fund research into new technology, but not try to legislate its use. The market WILL adopt new technology when it really IS superior and more efficient than the existing energy sources. This is how Big Oil knocked out Big WHALE Oil! It’ll happen again when somebody really makes a workable Mr. Fusion.

==> I do not agree. There is too much greed in this picture. Billions upon billions are made in oil…greed, greed, greed.

P.S. I recently built a new house. I looked at the cost/benefit of going to 2x6 walls/insulation instead of 2x4 R13 insulation. Even if natural gas doubled in price I would never make my money back based on the 6% mortgage rate I could get at the time.

==> Somethings are are worth doing even if the cost/benefit is not the most positive. There is no cost/benefit to going to a nice expensive restaurant, or to take a vacation to an expensive location, or to buy an expensive large screen television, etc…yet people do those things all the time because they want to. Turn that attitude towards energy consumption and ask yourself a question: Would Jesus have us conserve His natural resources, or not?

==> Try not to make life about money, it is not all about money. Money is merely a tool that we are supposed to use wisely and saving natural resources is a very wise action. Plenty of people would say giving any money to the Church is a bad choice of how to use our money…yet we are called to give. Likewise, just because energy saving technology might cost us more, is it not a Christian act to help save resources that future generations will need? Are we not called to be good stewards?

 

[TPJCatholic]

manualman,

BTW, The Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg combined high/city driving and costs 20-25K, and is a five passenger and very safe car. I would say that is one heck of a good place to start. It is far from perfect, yet that is a solid beginning and gas consumption efficiency in such vehicles will only improve as time marches on.

Toyota is working on additional hybrid SUVS (including their large Sequoia) that will get over 30 mpg, and minivans will come along for very good mileage as well----and those numbers are all just a beginning.

So 5-10 years from now I expect we will see good cars that attain 100 mpg with very good safety features (imagine if we cut gasoline consumption in half).

But, that won’t happen if we think we can’t do it…defeatist attitudes never advance us a bit. With the Lord’s help, we can and will make better use of His resources.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

manualman,

BTW, The Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg combined high/city driving and costs 20-25K, and is a five passenger and very safe car.

That’s Toyota’s claim – but NBC news tested the Prius and said they get closer to 33 mpg.

Some hybrids tested showed as little as 2mpg improvement over conventional cars of similar weight and performance.

Did you ever read “The Man Who Walked Through Time?” That’s Colin Fletcher’s book about his hike through the Grand Canyon.

He tells stories of people who died in the canyon – including one of a group of boys led by a priest. As they became irrational from thirst, the priest insisted they take off their shoes and drop them down the canyon, then climb down to them.

The moral is, sometimes pursuing the wrong course of action can lead to disaster, and pursuing it more vigorously can make the disaster worse.

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

Okay, so we will do nothing, that always works. If we pretend that oil is infinite, then everything will be fine, right?

Go here for a personal testimonial about the Prius (a person who has gotten 48+ mpg with their Prius): silverlining.greatnow.com/

 

[TPJCatholic]

World running out of time for oil alternatives
Aug 18 9:45 AM US/Eastern
http://img.breitbart.com/images/reuters.gif

By Anna Mudeva

PETTEN, Netherlands (Reuters) - The world could run out of time to develop cleaner alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels before depletion drives prices through the roof, a leading Dutch energy researcher said on Thursday.

Ton Hoff, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands, said it could take decades to make alternatives affordable to the point where they can be used widely, although high oil prices were already stimulating such research.

“If we run out of fossil fuels – by the time the oil price hits 100 dollars or plus, people will be screaming for alternatives, but whether they will be available at that moment of time – that’s my biggest worry,” Hoff said.

“That’s why we need to use fossil fuels in a more efficient way to have some more time to develop these alternatives up to a level where the robustness is guaranteed and their price has come down … This could take decades for some technologies.”

Stubbornly high oil prices have renewed worldwide interest in sustainable energy sources, such as solar, wind and biomass as well as biofuels.

But the world currently covers just some two percent of its energy needs with renewables as high costs and mixed policy initiatives hinder a wide-spread usage.

“The high oil price makes people at least think about alternatives … For us it’s a definitely a stimulus to work even harder than before,” Hoff said.

LOWERING COSTS

ECN, one of Europe’s leading energy research institutes, is working to improve or develop new technologies to boost efficiency and lower the costs of power production from wind, solar and biomass, he said.

ECN researchers are trying to raise the energy conversion efficiency of solar panels to above 20 percent from the current 17 percent, while reducing costs.

“In 10-15 years, I expect that solar energy conversion could be in competition with electricity produced from coal,” Hoff said. He believes the Netherlands has the potential to cover a large part of its power needs with solar energy.

ECN is also researching to increase the size of wind power turbines from the 3 megawatt a turbine produces now to 5 or 6 MW. This could be done by raising the height to 100 meters from 70 now and enlarging wings span to 120 meters from 90, he said.

ECN is also part of the $225 million “Global Climate and Energy Project” led by the U.S. University of Stanford and financed by General Electric, Toyota, Schlumberger and ExxonMobil.

The project aims to crack new technologies on fuel cells, which make electricity from hydrogen and emit only water vapor, energy production from biomass and separation and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2). The greenhouse CO2 gas is released when burning fossil fuels and is blamed for global warming.

Under the project, ECN will develop a new type of membrane reactor, which will separate CO2 during the process of producing hydrogen from fossil fuels, Hoff said. The CO2 could later be stored by companies in depleted gas or oil fields.

Hoff and other researchers say a transition to the so-called hydrogen economy could take decades as the cost of building new hydrogen-burning cars and power plants and storing CO2 are huge.

To test hydrogen usage in real life, ECN is in talks with the northern Dutch island of Texel to install hydrogen-based facilities, which would supply electricity to homes and offices.

“The idea is to see the pitfalls, fix them … and prepare for the future. My hopes are that this will stimulate the usage of this type of new technology because it is extremely important to have it in real life rather than in laboratories,” Hoff said.

breitbart.com/news/2005/08/18/MTFH69017_2005-08-18_13-53-52_SCH850008.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

vern,

Okay, so we will do nothing, that always works. If we pretend that oil is infinite, then everything will be fine, right?

Why is it some people on these threads always want to make false and outlandish claims about the positions of people who have a different opinion?

No, we SHOULD do things.

For example, we should launch a 10-year project to switch our entire over-the-road truck fleet to bio-diesel. We can grow enough diesel oil in this country to meet our needs.

We should work on clean burning coal plants – we have a couple of centuries worth of high grade coal (albeit locked up by a Presidential action) which we should be using – and developing better clean-air technology to go along with it.

We should look at nuclear power again – France is mostly nuclear, and their plants are a generation ahead of our old, creaky plants in both safety and efficiency.

We should look at how we design subdivisions – I grew up in a “walking” town – I could walk anywhere I needed to go. By contrast, I once worked across the street from a shopping mall – but couldn’t cross the 13 lanes of traffic if I wanted to walk, and not drive to that mall on my lunch hour.

TPJCatholic:

Go here for a personal testimonial about the Prius (a person who has gotten 48+ mpg with their Prius): silverlining.greatnow.com/

So he gets 48 mpg from a car that’s supposed to get 60 mpg?

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

Why is it some people on these threads always want to make false and outlandish claims about the positions of people who have a different opinion?

==> It is called sarcasm.

For example, we should launch a 10-year project to switch our entire over-the-road truck fleet to bio-diesel. We can grow enough diesel oil in this country to meet our needs. We should work on clean burning coal plants – we have a couple of centuries worth of high grade coal (albeit locked up by a Presidential action) which we should be using – and developing better clean-air technology to go along with it. We should look at nuclear power again – France is mostly nuclear, and their plants are a generation ahead of our old, creaky plants in both safety and efficiency. We should look at how we design subdivisions – I grew up in a “walking” town – I could walk anywhere I needed to go. By contrast, I once worked across the street from a shopping mall – but couldn’t cross the 13 lanes of traffic if I wanted to walk, and not drive to that mall on my lunch hour.

==> All good ideas and all of them, plus a lot more, should be pursued with the idea that our nation faces a true crisis.

So he gets 48 mpg from a car that’s supposed to get 60 mpg?

==> So, if all cars got 48 mpg or better, that would not help our oil situation at all? (talk about being nit-picky…sheesh, 48 mpg is pretty darn good imo)

 

[TPJCatholic]

vern,

The government can take action right now, including the President. If Toyota can engineer a car that can get 48 mpg (50-60 mpg according to them), then our nation should be shooting for standards for all cars to have that level of mileage within 5 years–period. Like it or not, we are facing a crisis, not because there is no oil (because there is lots of oil), but because many more nations are starting to enjoy economic properity and they are using a lot more oil. The United States no longer has a near monopoly on the earth’s oil resources and we never will again. We need to take action now and this President will not even call for people to conserve energy.

 

[sirduckjr]

As with almost every issue debated in the country today, special interest will prevent real solutions until it is painfully obvious there is a problem and $3 is just not painful enough. I take the middle of the road approach regarding our energy policies or more appropriately, lack there of energy policy.

1. Drill at ANWAR and increase mileage standards on automobile manufactures.
2. Encourage alternative fuels or renewable energies development through tax incentives for corporations and allow us to use our most abuntant resource, COAL.
3. Nuclear techonology which means we must store the waste at the Yucca Mountain in Nevada, at least until better alternatives are given.
4. The most unlikely would be CONSERVE. This would involve all types of sacrifice such as slower speed limits, carpooling, mass transportation, etc…

Of course, none of this will happen until we give at least $5 a gallon. And then, only maybe. The political forces that run this country will not allow for such solutions. So maybe a quicker way of solving such problems would be to somehow lesson the influence of such interests on both sides.

No lobbying from any political action committee what so ever! Just imput from the citizens. What a novel idea.

 

[vern_humphrey]

TPJCatholic:

It is called sarcasm.

No, it’s called unethical.

TPJCatholic:

All good ideas and all of them, plus a lot more, should be pursued with the idea that our nation faces a true crisis.

Which is why we shouldn’t suddenly go hareing off in one direction, as if a single possible solution were the only solution.

TPJCatholic:

So, if all cars got 48 mpg or better, that would not help our oil situation at all? (talk about being nit-picky…sheesh, 48 mpg is pretty darn good imo)

And 18 mpg – which one hybrid car gets, is “pretty darn good,” too?

Hybrids are simply not the silver bullet some people claim they are.